Alcohol influence on economics-related decision-making
Introduction
my research, I have discovered that
no behavioral experiments related to alcohol and economic decision-making have
been conducted in Russia. This paper observes the first try in this field, an
experiment attempting to test three sets of embedded hypotheses regarding how alcohol
influences our choices.describes a number of problems faced on the way and
suggestions to avoid them, as well as several successes which have been
attained with this first try in this field of research.though statistical tests
proved that not all of the results of this study fulfil the hopes put in them,
it definitely may serve as a foundation for anyone who wishes to develop this
topic, which is quite significantly important for business-related and
interpersonal relationship in other country.experiment was an unusual and
pleasant experience for everyone involved, and I hope that this paper will be
an interesting and educational read too.
Literature review
vast amount of work has been done to
determine the way in which alcohol affects our thinking, behavior and
decisions. In the early stages prior to writing this paper, many scientific
disciplines, e.g. medicine, economics, sociology, psychology investigated into
this topic from a 360 degrees perspective.neuro-imaging study by Gilman et. al.
covered the topic of risk-taking by alcohol-induced individuals. They found
that brain areas responsible for rewarding process become more active under
alcohol influence, while areas responsible for feedback and responsiveness,
such as reaction to loss, were blunted. The overall conclusion was an increase
of risk-taking, especially when the stimulating effect of alcohol on an
individual was prevailing over the sedative one. (Gilman et al., 2012) A study
following this one broadened the range of research, proving the existence of
influence on “brain's dynamic response to task demands and regions thought to
govern motor control, motivation, and executive control, such as working memory
and attention”. Both of these studies used the intravenous method of alcohol
delivery - a technique decided to be left aside for the current research due to
possible difficulties with finding participants.(Bjork and Gilman, 2014). I
decided not to aim this research at checking the difference in risk-taking, as
a vast multitude of works has already observed and tested it. The risk-attitude
is assumed to be increasing under alcohol in this work. The notion of two
effects of alcohol - sedative and stimulatory - with opposite direction of
influence on certain aspects of behavior have been paid additional attention
to. During the experiment, effort was made to mitigate the spread of sedative
effect - most often associated with relaxation, melancholy and boredom. The
tables with participants, who finished their tasks before others and have to wait
without any activity were specially attended to by the moderator or his
assistant to engage the participants in conversation. Also, an additional game
was added in the break period (necessary for alcohol to have its effect), to
help the time pass in a more lively way. Overall, the researches above became a
foundation, telling that the effect of alcohol on certain brain areas which
determine humans cognitive abilities exists, and thus, the effect on behavior
is to be expected.accomplishments of works in this field made by economists
include testing how General Axiom of Revealed Preferences holds, as well as the
independence axiom. They have found no ground for claiming a significant change
for subjects under alcohol. No irrational behavior or unresponsiveness to
options provided was found even at high doses of alcohol. The findings, on the
other hand, included the observation of slowed-down reaction time and worsened
coordination, as well as higher risk taking. However, this experiment used
volunteers in the bar, with no control over the prior dose taken. (Burghart et
al,2014) Nevertheless, their conclusion that the extent to which GARP and
independence axiom hold depends on the individual, and not on the degree of
intoxication (even for high doses) was considered to be credible enough to not
include testing the two axioms into this work.studies were concerned with
exactly which dose the participants should be targeted at. A research by a
group of scientists concerned with drunk-driving problem proved that the effect
on both dispersed and focused attention and visual and motor control appears
significantly on 0,05 - 0,07% Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) among the
subjects. Another research tested the level of 0,03% BAC, finding that it
doesn’t affect functional or rhetorical abilities, but the mechanisms of
obtaining and processing of visual information are already impaired. (Allen et
al,2008). These results led to believe prior to the experiment that the BAC of
0,05% can already be enough for obtaining significant results, no evidence of a
behavioral experiment observing alcohol-induced condition was found among
studies conducted in Russia. The problems usually tackled in the works observed
mostly address problems caused by excessive alcohol use, connecting alcoholism
to various micro- and macro-level phenomenon, as well as observing the nature
and effects of continuous alcohol abuse. Several studies connected alcohol
consumption with religious confession, while others described how people
perceive themselves under alcohol.fact proved to be encouraging, as it
confirmed the novelty of the then planned experiment in this field in
Russia.the vastest study on this matter has been conducted by a group of
Italian researchers in their work “Economic Behavior under Alcohol Influence:
An Experiment on Time, Risk, and Social Preferences”. They used placebo to test
pharmacological and psychological effects of alcohol on optimism, risk
preferences, time preferences and altruism. Their findings regarding
risk-taking support absence of change in risk-aversion for male subjects and
increased risk-aversion for female ones. Impatience is found to be positively
correlated with intoxication, and the effect is “essentially pharmacological
and goes beyond the expectation-mediated effects”. This was one of the most
inspiring results found during the research on the topic. The work itself
proved to be a rich resource of knowledge of the field and its specificities.
The original plan of experimental procedures of my work included a placebo
design as well. However, the placebo procedures used by the Italian researchers
(peach juice with ethanol for treatment and peach juice with a little grappa on
the surface and borders for control group) did not appear to have enough
credibility in causing subject’s misperception. A firm producing non-alcohol
analogue of vodka, claimed to be non-discernible in taste or smell was found.
But delivery and costs problems made me stick to having no placebo group in the
study.for generosity, they checked the stated potential donations to
humanitarian projects, with variety regarding sympathy towards project’s cause
(“cold” and “hot” projects). They found that the subjects gave less under
alcohol influence, which was attributed to “lower conformity to social norms”.
This explanation was used in this work for one of the hypothesis stated.( Luca
Corazzini, Antonio Filippin, Paolo Vanin,2015). In addition, this is supported
by several medical studies, both those conducted on humans and on animals. The
kinds of behavior, realization of which is slowed down by certain brain areas,
appears under the alcohol influence (Eysenck, 1973). An experiment on cats
proved that the negative stimuli normally stopping he subjects from realizing
their desired type of behavior tends to lose effect after alcohol
consumption.overall outcome of the analysis led to choosing the following set
of consequences of alcohol consumption as positively existing to a varied
degree:
. Change in risk attitude.
Depending on which effect was dominating - sedative or stimulating - a person
becomes more risk-loving or risk-averse. Studies connect one or the other
effect prevailing with individual’s expectations, rather than the alcohol
effect itself. Some specific features of the experiment tend to lead us to
expecting the stimulating effect to be prevailing. Consumption of vodka in
shots with biting lemon after, together with the whole unusualness of the setup
led to participants showing more signs of excitement rather than drowsiness. (Fanny
Kreuscha, Aurélie Vilennea, and Etienne Quertemont,2013)
2. Decrease in alertness
towards external stimuli, less attention towards the task and more difficulties
in information processing. Basically, people under alcohol influence feel more
relaxed when working on a task. They do not take in all the details, as the
details and the task itself provide a bigger challenge now. But at the same
time, this challenge grasps subject’s attention, so he/she notices the
surroundings less. (Dirk Breitmeier , Irina Seeland-Schulze, Hartmut Hecker
& Udo Schneider 2007)
. Rationality does not
disappear. As much as we can call an individual rational, the level of
rationality stays for moderate-to-high doses. Responsiveness to incentives,
reaction to difference in options and consistence in preferences depend on
individual’s specific characteristics more than on blood alcohol level.
(Burghart et al.,2014)addition, a number of studies regarding the determinants
of blood alcohol concentration were assessed. Although the list of factors found
to be significant for the determination is vast, including drinking experience,
years in school, personal level of alcohol inhibition and many others. Most of
these factors are inaccurately stated when self-reported or impossible to
determine without medical testing. Thus, the dose-determining factors were
reduced to the objective minimum: height, weight, gender and stomach fullness.
(John T P Hustad, Kate B Carey,2005)
framework
sets of `embedded' hypotheses were
considered:
. Alcohol affects perception at
individual level by making individuals less sensitive to stimuli. Thresholds of
perception of changes in stimuli become wider, resulting in greater tolerance
to potential losses, and neglect of profitable opportunities. In terms of
prospect theory, for instance, this may result in mitigating possible losses
and boosting up possible gains, altering the shape of the value function:
instead of
it may become
As an experimental treatment, we
used several lotteries to be given within-subject to a person before and after
alcohol consumption to 1) make pairwise choice, and 2) state the certainty
equivalent (minimum WTA) to the twelve lotteries in the list
#
|
Outcome1,p1,Outcome2,p2
|
EV
|
Outcome1,p1,Outcome2,p2
|
EV
|
1
|
$4.00, 35/36; -$1.00, 1/36
|
3.86
|
$16.00, 11/36; -$1.50, 25/36
|
3.85
|
2
|
$2.00, 29/36; -$1.00, 7/36
|
1.42
|
$9.00, 7/36; -$0.50, 29/36
|
1.35
|
3
|
$3.00, 34/36; -$2.00, 2/36
|
2.72
|
$6.50, 18/36; -$1.00, 18/36
|
2.75
|
4
|
$4.00, 32/36; -$0.50, 4/36
|
3.50
|
$40.00, 4/36; -$1.00, 32/36
|
3.56
|
5
|
$2.50, 34/36; -$0.50, 2/36
|
2.33
|
$8.50, 14/36; -$1.50, 22/36
|
2.39
|
6
|
$2.00, 33/36; -$2.00, 3/36
|
1.67
|
$5.00, 18/36; -$1.50, 18/36
|
1.75
|
These tables are first given before
taking alcohol, and then, the same tables after alcohol, but with gains
expressed in rubles and probabilities in decimals, balancing the order of
questions among the subjects. The expected values are not given, and the use of
calculator is not allowed. (standard for preference reversals test) (Slovic and
Lichtenstein, 1971) When an individual first chooses first option in a pair,
and then it turns out that he/she assigned a higher certainty equivalent to the
second one - that is a preference reversal.data from this game will allow to
compare for consistency of preferences through pairwise choices and higher
certainty equivalents as well as for the frequency of the reversals
themselves., a test was decided to be conducted against the control group to
find whether expectations of alcohol intake affect the number of reversals in
any way., the first hypothesis is that the number of preference reversals
increases under alcohol effect.
. Alcohol distorts the utilities in
general, resulting in not only parametric changes in utility shapes, but in
utility specification itself. Specifically, consider a person affected by
alcohol whose preferences before have been characterized by a utility function
v(x). After this person got some shots, his or her utility becomes u(x) - not
necessarily affine or monotonic transformation of v(x). Testable implications
may be stated in terms of inequity aversion theory: instead of
x is player’s gains, y is player’s
partner’s gainsutility may become
(insensitive to losses of the other
player),
(insensitive to own losses)
any other
specification. Natural test for that would be a direct attempt to decompose
preferences in terms of ultimatum game (taken in form of impunity, generosity
and envy games).ultimatum game: one player proposes a division of the pie
(continuous variable), another accepts or rejects.a significant number of test
subjects had economic background and thus were familiar with ultimatum game,
the conventional ultimatum game was left out. Players with experience in a
certain game tend to form a certain strategy which they stick too, so actions
in such games are unlikely to be affected by mild intoxication. Thus, the
following versions were used:
· Impunity game (also
known as dictator game): same as ultimatum, but in which the proposer receives
whatever he or she offers no matter what the decision of the responder
is.(Bolton et al, 1998)
· Envy game: same as
ultimatum, but proposer is a residual claimant who chooses a pie size from
which the responder receives a fixed share. The responder can either accept or
reject the choice of the proposer. (Sandro Casal
& Werner Güth & Mofei Jia & Matteo
Ploner, 2011)
· Generosity game:
the proposer determines the size of the pie, knowing that his/her share is
fixed, and the share of the responder is decided by the proposer, and can vary
in a systematic way. The responder may then accept or reject the offer.
(W.Guth,2010), knowing this information, behavior of drunken and sober
proposers can be compared in these three games, with the hypothesis that
drunken proposers will be less sensitive to the possible gains of the other
player., the pattern of offers and acceptance were expected to differ between
endowment options, because subjects, with a high degree of probability,
consider the choice of any option in terms of value relative to the endowment.
Of course, exact calculation is unlikely to be expected, so a rule of thumb is
probable: “the offer is this number of steps away from the endowment”. As the
scales are relatively different for three game instances (endowment is located
to the right of the scale center for the endowment of 70 instance, to the left
of it for 50, and exactly at the center for 30), the decision involved should
differ too. The offers of same relative value (for example, sender offers 75,
when his/her endowment is 70, or 55, when his/her endowment is 50, which are
both one step higher than the endowment value), are likely to face differing
rejection patterns due to receiver seeing the possible range of not chosen
options (75 is almost the maximal offer possible, while 55 is far from top
offers).used in studies on the games (Gueth et al., 2011) was used to work on
the specific versions of the games, including a change in measurement units to make
the tasks look different before and after alcohol.half of the participants
provided data regarding the offers in these games, while the other half
provided data on the acceptance rates and patterns. Players knew they were
playing for real money rewards to guarantee more serious approach to the
task.on the results discussed in the literature review, the second set of
hypotheses is the following:) Offers in Envy game and shares claimed in
Impunity game by senders increase. The social norms preventing individuals from
choosing the most self-benefitting options will break down with alcohol.)
Rejection rate for receivers in Envy and Generosity Game become higher.
Individuals lose sensitivity to their own losses, valuing punishment of unfair
actions higher.
. Alcohol inhibits abilities for
strategic reasoning, which go beyond utility specification, but apply to
strategies' profiles (typically, in equilibrium). For instance, players in the
four games (Falk Fehr Fichbacher 2003) will typically fail to recognize what
games are more and less inoffensive for the receiver. For example, the game
where proposer has two same options of offers is expected to receive much less
rejects than the one where proposers can give 80 percent either to himself or
the partner and chooses to give less to the partner. In Western countries,
proportions of rejections decrease exactly in the order of: b>a>c>d,
whereas it is known that among the animals, there is no significant effect. The
hypothesis would be that drunk responders will behave in a way similar to
animals, i.e. will lose sensitivity to the generosity of the proposers. Thus,
the tested hypothesis is that after alcohol, the proportion of rejection for
all 4 options becomes roughly the same.all the games above, data before alcohol
intake is compared with data obtained after and tested for difference using
chi-squared or Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Also, a comparison with a control
group is made, to control for effect of difference occurring due to the task
repetition after certain time period. Stata 9.2 software was used for
conducting the statistical tests on the data obtained.
All participants were asked to fill
in an online survey after the experiment. The questions concerned the existence
of economic background of the participant, experience with alcohol and its
self-perceived effect on the individual. The survey data may show the
difference between decisions of economists and non-economists. People with
economic background were expected to put more weight on their own gains and
neglect the gains of others, perceiving maximization of their own utility.
Also, they were expected to choose the marginal options and stick to their
strategy after alcohol intake more than others. For non-economists, more
emotional behavior was expected, shown by choosing a certain value
corresponding to “fair” distribution of gains between them and the partners.
procedures
for the experiment were found using
posts in social media and word-of-mouth. The total number of participants was
61 for treatment group, 30 for control group for game 1 and 11 for control
group for games 2 and 3. More than 60% of the participants had not been
acquainted with the moderator prior to the experiment. The online advertisement
for the experiment suggested an opportunity to take part in an experiment in
behavioral economics for a monetary reward, while warning about the necessity
to consume a certain amount of alcohol during the procedure.experiments with
the treatment group took place in a café located
at Shabolovka 24.
The café administrator allowed to
use one of the café halls as the experiment room, free of charge. The café
does not serve its own heavy liquor, so it was allowed just for the purposes of
conducting the experiment to bring bottles and
lemons bought elsewhere. Shot glasses, saucers
for lemon slices, a knife and a cutting board were provided by the café
staff.of food or drinks was not allowed
during the experiment for the participants. However, after all the tasks were
completed by all participants, there was a period of time during which the
moderator had to calculate the rewards of all players. Participants were
encouraged to order something during that period.were 9 such sessions.
Experiment sessions took place at varying time, depending on when it was most
convenient for participants of the particular group to come. The earliest
starting time was 12am, while the latest being 10pm. The number of participants
in one session varied from 4 to 11. In case when an odd number of players took
part, filled task sheets with data from previous experiments were used to
calculate the rewards for games requiring two-player interaction. The
café contained normal visitors too at the time of the experiment.
Some of them showed various degrees of interest towards it, but none were
allowed to take part due to having had already consumed alcohol recently
before. No incidents regarding visitors bothering participants occurred. The
moderator answered any questions addressed to himself or the participants
individually to each asking visitor in order not to disturb the participants
during tasks completion. But during most of the sessions no visitors approached
any people involved in the experiment during sessions.were two more sessions
with control groups, where no alcohol was involved, taking place at Shabolovka
26, inside the building of HSE University. This site could not have been used
for treatment group experimental procedures due to ban of drinking on the
university grounds.experiment was moderated either with the main moderator
alone or with help from a volunteering assistant. The assistant was sometimes
chosen from among previous participants, but he/she was never allowed to take
part in the experiment after assisting, even if he/she hadn’t participated
before. The assistant’s role was to help with faster distribution of task
sheets and collecting them after, as well as answering the participants’
questions. Usually, one team was assigned to be controlled by the main
moderator, while the other was taken care of by the assistant. The main rules
were still announced by the main moderator. Assistant also helped with alcohol
procedures details: he/she took the shot glasses, saucers, knife and cutting
plate from the bar and cut lemons while the main moderator was explaining the
rules, and then distributed shots and saucers with lemons. The main moderator
was the only one pouring alcohol to participants to ensure the correctness of
each dose.arrival to the experiment site, participants were sat at the tables
in such a manner to follow this set of rules:
no more than 3 people at
the same table
there are two teams of
equal sizes: receivers and senders (player A and B). People from different
teams sit at different tables.
participants who know each
other well belong to the same team. This condition is important to prevent
collaboration between possible partners in games.the whole group of participants
got together, instructions and agreement forms were given.is given for everyone
to read the instruction and fill in the form, then the most important rules are
highlighted by the experiment moderator for everyone to hear:
) It is not forbidden to talk with
your teammates, but it is necessary to make decisions on your own. Participants
were still allowed to discuss the rules with their teammates to help them
understand.
) Every participant’s instruction
contains a Greek letter written on its back side. Participants should not let
the other team members get to know their letter. Every sheet of paper received
from the moderator during the experiment should be signed with this letter, as
well as with the word “before” or “after”, depending on whether the particular
sheet was received before or after consuming alcohol. The letter method was
decided to be used instead of signing with names to avoid bringing in personal
emotions about a particular player into decision making in games. The “before”
and “after” part helped the experiment moderator to analyze the results
quicker.
) Participants may not leave the
experiment room or consume any food or beverages except for those given by the
moderator until the experiment is over. This rule is important to ensure equal
treatment for all test subjects.after, the first game sheet was given. The
order of the game sets varied between experimental groups, but was the same for
all the participants inside.next task sheet is given to all the players at the
table simultaneously, when all of them complete the previous task. When the
next task belongs to a new game set, the task sheet is given to all players
from both teams after everyone has completed the previous one.games from set 2
and 3 (those requiring interaction between players from opposing teams),
players are paired randomly for each task sheet for outcome calculation. So
each player interacts with different players from the opposing teams even among
the tasks in the same game set. All of this information is known to
participants.was allowed for the participants to ask the moderator any
questions they want. If these questions were regarding the understanding of
tasks, the moderator answered immediately and then repeated the answer to all
the members of the inquirer’s team or to all the participants, depending on
whether the question concerned a task specific to one team or to both of them.
For all other questions, the inquirer would be asked to leave the question until
the end of the experiment.
description
set 1:Choice and Certainty
Equivalentreceive a list of 6 pairs of lotteries. For each lottery, the two
possible outcomes are known, as well as the probabilities of these outcomes.
The participants had to choose one preferred lottery in each pair.completing
the task, the second sheet was given, containing 12 lotteries, also with
outcomes and probabilities known. The task was to state the certainty
equivalent - the minimal sum of money the participant would agree to receive
instead of the possibility to play the lottery - for each option.set 2:,
Generosity and Impunity Gamesparticipant’s role in these games depended on the
team he/she had been assigned to.from team A were making the offer about
rewards among the options in the tables, while players from team B were
choosing whether to accept or reject the offer for each possible offer.game:
Player B receives an endowment. Player A chooses what would be his/her own
reward in this game and makes an offer. If that offer is accepted by Player B,
Player A receives the proposed amount and Player B holds the endowment. If the
offer is rejected, both players get zero.game: Player A receives an endowment.
He/she then chooses what would be the reward of Player B in this game and makes
an offer. If that offer is accepted by Player B, he/she receives the proposed
amount and Player A holds the endowment. If the offer is rejected, both players
get zero.instances of the two games above differing in endowment sizes were
provided. The endowment sizes in rubles were 70, 50 and 30. The ranges of
offers were from 40 to 80 for endowments 70 and 50, and from 15 to 45 for
endowments of 30, all with the step of 5 between the offer options. This
implies that players, after observing all three game instances, see the
difference in scales and endowments and likely consider the offers in sense of
relative units, comparing the offer and the endowment.game: only players from
team A take part in this game. They decide how to split a money prize of 100
rubles between themselves and a random player from team B. Player B cannot reject
the offer, which is known to players from team A.set 3:profilesplayers receive
a set of 4 pairs of offers regarding splitting money prizes. For each pair, the
players should decide one preferred offer they make to a player from the
opposing team. After the 4 choices are made by each of the participants, the
task sheets are taken by the moderator and interchanged for task sheets filled
in by a member of the opposing team for each player. The players then observe
the offers received and decide whether to accept or reject it for each of the 4
pairs. If the receiver agrees, the money prize is divided according to the
chosen offer. If the receiver rejects, he/she and the sender then get zero.3
game sets are given two times: before and after players consume alcohol. The
tasks received after alcohol are altered in a sense that endowments, outcomes
and offers are given in different units, while the way probabilities are given
switches from simple to decimal fractions, or vice versa.game set 1, players
get tasks with either decimal probabilities and outcomes in rubles or with
simple fractioned probabilities and outcomes in dollars (one dollar considered
to be equal to 50 rubles). They solve both options during the experiment, with
random distribution regarding which is before alcohol consumption. Players at
the same table were given these options in the same order.game set 2, players
first get the tasks with offers and endowments in rubles and then, after
consuming alcohol, the tasks with special money units (equal to 5 rubles).game
set 3, players randomly got either the task with offers in rubles or the task
with offers in percent points of the money prize before alcohol consumption and
then the other one. All players are given these options in the same
order.completing 3 game sets, each table received the shot glasses and saucers
with sliced lemon. Alcohol was then distributed and consumed, with nothing to
drink or eat after, except for the lemon slices provided. In 7 minutes after
the consumption, the participants are asked to switch tables and are given the
new task sheets. During the waiting period, a rock-paper-scissors tournament
was held to pass the time. The winners among each table’s players went to the
final rounds to compete for the prize of 50 rubles. This helped to pass time
quicker and to support the stimulatory effect of alcohol over the sedative
effect.control group did not consume alcohol at this time, but the pause
between tasks still remained for them. The overall pause between end of the
last task of the first part and handout of the first task of the second part
was the same for treatment and control groups.game sets 2 and 3 interaction
between two players is required. In game set 3, players first filled in the
offers and then received offers from the other team and filled in
acceptance/rejection decisions. The partner’s identity was not known due to use
of Greek letters instead of names, and interacting pairs varied before and
after alcohol randomly, so that players had different partners and did not have
motives for retaliation. For some sessions, the experiment moderator secretly
filled in the offers himself secretly, putting the most offensive offers, to
get more data on rejection rates for these offers. Players still were told that
the offers come from the other table’s players.game set 2, players did not
observe their partner’s decisions. However, after the end of the experiment,
task sheets were ‘partnered’ randomly to calculate the money rewards. The task
sheets were paired in a manner providing that each player could have up to
three different partners for game set 2 (one for each game), but having only
one partner was possible too. This implies that the players knew they don’t
play with the same player in games inside the set, or in games before and after
alcohol. The rewards calculation was made right after the end of the experiment
by the experiment moderator. The reward was based on games of set 2 only. Only
one set was used for calculation - either before or after alcohol consumption.
The choice was made using a flip of a coin. Maximum possible reward was 455,
plus 50 from the first prize in rock-paper-scissors tournament
Alcohol procedures
participants consumed “Green Mark”
vodka (“Зелёная
Марка”).dose
was calculated individually for each player before the experiment, using a
professional alcohol calculator developed by and for forensic
medics.determining parameters are gender, weight, height and stomach fullness.
The calculator also allows for input of values for minimal, average and maximal
alcohol elimination rates of the organism, but these were set to default due to
impossibility of determining without special medical tests.participants’ doses
were targeted to achieve the blood ethanol concentration level of 0,5%.level of
BAC is considered the border line for legal driving in several European
countries, such as France. The proposal by Ministry of Healthcare of Russia of
1967suggested 0,5% BAC as the starting point for mild intoxication. Clinical
studies (Zoethout et al., 2011) tested the acute effects of alcohol on central
nervous system and determined the 0,5-0,7% BAC to be the level at which not
only speaking abilities and information processing are affected, but visuomotor
controls and focused and divided attention are also impaired. Thus this level
is expected to be enough ground for appearance of evidence for changes in
task-solving, but not high enough to cause negative consequences among the test
subjects. The doses given to participants ranged from 65 ml to 150 ml, with
mean being around 120 for males and 95 for females.measurement glass was used
for exact pouring of each dose. Shots provided at the
café were exactly 50 milliliters, and the measurement glass was 30 ml,
with markings for each 5 ml. Only lemon slices
were available for all participants and were allowed to be used to follow the
vodka. The switching the table procedure is conducted upon players for the
reason that switching the position from sitting to standing helps alcohol to
spread through the organism (and the effects of alcohol to be felt) more
effectively.
No accidents connected to alcohol
consumption occurred, the lemon provided proved to be enough to help through
the possible troubles with vodka drinking.
analysis
from 61 participants from treatment
group, 11 participants from control group for game sets 2 and 3, and 30
participants from control group for game set 1 was collected as a result of
experiment sessions conducted. Observations from one participant from treatment
group was eliminated from the analysis, as it was found later that he had
already consumed alcohol by the start of the experiment.the following
description, significant result means significance at 5% level.set 1:on
preference reversals for each pair of lotteries has been collected and
analyzed.proportion of reversals for treatment group before alcohol was
calculated and then compared using binomial tests with the proportion after
alcohol and the proportion for the control group. No significant difference has
been found.calculating the proportion of players having each a certain number
of reversals (maximum being 6), a chi-square goodness of fit test was used. It
did not show any significant difference either., it cannot be concluded that
preferences become less consistent under mild intoxication.set 2:from Players A
and acception/rejection rates from Players B were analyzed
separately.Adifference in offers was calculated separately for each endowment
instance and each instance. Then, two one-sided and a two-side t-test was used
with H0:difference=0.difference between Generosity game instances proved to be
significant. Standard deviation decreased after alcohol intake for all three
endowment instances, but changes in mean value do not allow us to make a
significant conclusion.for the Envy game, for the endowment of 70, one-sided
t-test successfully rejected H0 in favor of Ha: difference<0.reminder: in
this game, Players B received an endowment, while players A could offer the
amount of money in their own reward in this game. Players B could then accept
or reject this offer., for the endowment of 70, the scale of offer choices was
from 40 to 80, so there were only two options higher than 70, in contrast with
endowment of 50, where 6 such options were available, or of 30, with 3 such
options. Less players chose 80 (the maximum value) after alcohol intake. It can
be observed that standard deviation increases after alcohol intake both for
endowments of 50 and 70, so we can say that many individuals changed their
decision, but the changes were in both increasing and decreasing directions for
the endowment of 50, with more people choosing the maximum of possible offers
and more people choosing the minimum of possible offers at the same time.
Still, only for the endowment of 70 a significant conclusion can be made., no
players chose the minimum offer for endowments of 70 or 30, supporting the
assumption that players would deal in values relative to the endowment when
making the choice. The interpretation can be that after alcohol player became
more humble, feeling uneasy with choosing a reward higher than their partner’s,
or they feel more compassionate to another person, who also drank with them,
and find it uncomfortable to take a higher reward for yourself.differences in
offers in Impunity game were calculated and tested through t-test as well
first, and then using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The results showed a
significant change after alcohol: the players became more generous towards
their partners. The explanation for this is consistent with a commentary given
by one of the participants: players felt more compassionate and sorry for their
choiceless partners., the hypothesis of increase in offers is not supported.
The opposite is true: the Envy game and Impunity game instances show a decrease
in offers. It implies that the alcohol consumed did not lead to the subjects
maximizing only their own rewards - it caused them to be more compassionate and
share more.Beach value of offer, for each endowment instance, the proportion of
acceptance by the receiver was calculated for data after alcohol consumption.
Binomial tests were then run through each value of offer of each endowment
instance from data before alcohol intake to compare with the proportion in the
matched pair data. The significant results for Envy game are only for the
following treatments:
) For endowment of 70:
players accept proposal of Player A’s reward being equal to Player B’s reward
more after alcohol intake. A number of players accepted only offers where
Player A was trying to claim a reward less than Player B’s endowment. A
significant percentage of them became less strict and agreed to accept equal
distribution of rewards.
) For endowment of 50:
players accept proposals of Player A’s reward being 55 and 60 less after
alcohol consumption. Player A’s decision to earn a bit more than Player B’s
endowment apparently becomes more annoying to participants after alcohol. At
the same time, these players are still as fine as before with their partner
claiming the highest prize possible, as they find it rational.
) For endowment of 30:
players accept proposal of Player A’s reward being 45 (the maximum for this
scale) more after alcohol consumption. The possible cause of change is that a
large number of participants rejected only the offer of highest value before
alcohol. After alcohol, a significant part of them relaxed and decided to
accept everything, for either generosity reasons or desire to save the effort
with filling the form.generosity game, only 1 result was significant: for
Player A’s endowment of 50, players accepted the offer of getting the same
reward from the partner less after alcohol. The equal offer of 50 is located at
the very beginning of the scale for this endowment, with only 40 and 45 being
worse options. So an explanation can be that after alcohol participants that
even this offer is too small, as it literally costs nothing for the partner to
give more. Also, according to one of our assumptions, they become less
responsive to possible losses, so it is easier for them to get zero if that
means punishment of an unfair partner.another test, the proportions of
acceptances of each player were counted for each game instance before and after
alcohol. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare these proportions
pairwise, and the results were significant for Envy game instances with Player
B’s endowments of 50 and 30.personal acceptance rates decreased for endowment
of 50 and increased for endowment of 30. This is consistent with results of
binomial tests and can be explained by the difference in scales., we cannot say
that our hypothesis of a decreased acceptance rate has been rejected. The
pattern certainly changes, but the implications turned out to be more complex
than just insensitivity to losses.significant difference has been found between
decisions in the control group’s participants.set 3in 3 pairs of options have
been observed:
. Player gets 20% - partner
gets 80% against Player gets 80% - partner gets 20%
. Almost 47% of players
changed their decision in this pair after alcohol.
. Out of them, only 38%
changed their decision for the option more beneficial for their partner.
. However, even more players
in control group (about 55%) changed their decision in this pair as well, with
only 33% changing it for their partner’s benefit. Thus, we can conclude that
this effect is more likely to be attributes to retaliation, despite the effort
of convincing the players that the partner after alcohol will be different.
. Player gets 80% - partner
gets 20% against Each of the two gets 50%
. More than 30% of players
changed their decision in this pair after alcohol. Only 35% of them changed it
to make an equal division, most changed to get more themselves. This is a
significant result, as no player in control group changed his/her decision in
this game.
. This can mean that although
the general desire for retaliation existed, it did not outweigh the inequality
aversion for the control group. However, alcohol helped to magnify this effect,
showing significant signs of retaliation in this pair too among the treatment
group participants.
. Player gets 80% - partner
gets 20% against Player gets zero - partner gets 100%
. Almost no player changed
his/her decision here in neither treatment nor control group./rejection: for
each unfair offer in each pair (for example, player taking 80 to himself when
an equal division was the other option) the proportion of rejections has been
calculated. The resulting pattern turned out to be different from the one
obtained by the European researchers:
instead of
The
difference is that participants of the experiment described here found the
offer in the pair with two equal options the least offensive while the most
offensive being the one where player can claim more to himself/herself instead
of an equal division. This sounds more logical to me too, so maybe this
difference can be attributed to cultural differences., the pattern remained the
same after alcohol, so our hypothesis of insensitivity to strategic choice for
the drunk people cannot be supported.
out of 60 participants, whose data
was used in the experiment, filled in the survey, providing data about the
sample used.age ranged from 17 to 27, with 15 females and 45 males. Only 12.7
percent of those having filled the survey drink heavy liquor at least once a
week, while more than 49 percent drink heavy liquor less often than once a
month. The drink of choice is wine, vodka taking the second place. 50.9% stated
that 1-3 shots of heavy liquor is enough for them to feel moderate
intoxication. A reminder: the range of doses was from 65 to 150 ml per person.
The most popular reason for drinking being to support a company of friends
(more than 92% stated this among the reasons), while festivals and stress
relief also being reasons relevant for more than a half of participants. The
mean number of shots a person drinks during a drinking event turned out to be
7.6.
Only 20% of participants stated that
neither their work no study experience had ever been connected to economics.
This may explain a large number of marginal decisions and sticking to the
chosen strategy, as economists are more prone to considering their utility to
be coming from only their own reward, with low responsiveness to circumstances,
which are often considered a source of deviation from rational behavior.
significant effect of alcohol can be
observed in Envy and Impunity games, as well as in in-pair choice of strategic
offers. Individuals feel more compassionate towards their partners, if the
final outcome depends on their own choice only. Envy decreases after alcohol
when own endowment is high. Partner’s choice of having the maximum possible reward
becomes more tolerated after drinking when endowment is low, but choosing to
have just a bit more than the partner faces more reject than before alcohol
when there is still a range of superior options. Players choose to be more
humble in deciding their own reward when the partner’s endowment is high, but
not when his/her endowment is medium or low. In Generosity game players indeed
become less sensitive to their own losses, but this conclusion does not have
enough support across all endowment instances and Envy game results.strategic
interaction, repetition serves as a source of retaliation motives, which become
enhanced for those having consumed alcohol. However, the participants did not
lose sensitivity to the left-out option presence in strategic interaction,
neither have they become less consistent in their preferences.hypotheses stated
before the experiment could not be confirmed in the given form, which reflects
the pioneering nature of this work. We could not observe increased
inconsistency in preferences, decreased influence of social norms, or
indifference between degrees of inoffensiveness of offers. However, the results
showed interesting nuances in behavior which were not accounted for before
(f.e. individuals starting to accept equal division of reward more after
alcohol, but only for when their endowment is high).work incorporated
procedures of alcohol treatment never used before in an attempt to test the
hypotheses never tested before. The results obtained helped to make clear the
directions further research in the field can move into, and the experience it
allowed to get can prove useful for ensuring finer outcomes of the subsequent
studies. All papers which had been given to participants, as well as the survey
questions, are included in the attachment for possible use and
reference.following alterations can be made in future experiments to obtain
more certain, significant and life-consistent results:
) Increase in dosage - 0,5% BAC is
the lower border for mild intoxication. More sever intoxication levels will
provide more changes in decisions. According to the survey, the average dose a
participant obtained during a drinking evening is about 3,5 times higher than
the one consumed at the experiment.
) Less people with economic
background in the sample - due to economic games being a frequent part of the
studies, economic students make their choices with a similar pattern,
completing such games with results not actually representing their preferences
and beliefs. Alternatively, a more real-life form of game can be used instead
of tasks on paper.
) Two days for each group - leaving
at least a day-long gap between completing the first three sets of tasks and
drinking alcohol and completing the rest of the tasks. This way, participants
are less likely to rely on their memory when filling tasks after alcohol
consumption.
) Placebo effect incorporation -
existence of non-alcoholic vodka leaves immense possibilities for placebo
studies. Its incorporation will allow to develop the research of alcohol influence
into numerous new branches.
alcohol
economics decision making
References
1. Allen,
A. J., Meda, S. A., Skudlarski, P., Calhoun, V. D., Astur, R., Ruopp, K. C. and
Pearlson, G. D. (2009), Effects of Alcohol on Performance on a Distraction Task
During Simulated Driving. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 33:
617-625.
2. James
M. Bjork, Jodi M. Gilman, The effects of acute alcohol administration on the
human brain: Insights from neuroimaging, Neuropharmacology, 2014, vol 84, pp.
101-110
. GE
Bolton, E Katok, R Zwick, Dictator game giving: Rules of fairness versus acts
of kindness International journal of game theory, 1998, vol. 27, pp. 269-299
. Dirk
Breitmeier , Irina Seeland-Schulze, Hartmut Hecker & Udo Schneider,Clinical
study:The influence of blood alcohol concentrations of around 0.03% on
neuropsychological functions-a double-blind, placebo-controlled investigation,
2007 The Authors. Journal compilation, Society for the Study of Addiction
. Daniel
R. Burghart, Paul W. Glimcher, Stephanie C. Lazzaro, An expected utility
maximizer walks into a bar…, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2013, vol. 46
(3), pp. 215-246
. Casal
S., Ploner M. Guth W. Would you mind if I get more? An experimental study of
the envy game Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2012 vol 84 (3)
pp 857-865
. Corazzini
L, Filippin A, Vanin P Economic Behavior under the Influence of Alcohol: An
Experiment on Time Preferences, Risk-Taking, and Altruism, 2015
. Jodi
M. Gilman, Ashley R. Smith, Vijay A. Ramchandani, Reza Momenan andDaniel W.
Hommer, The effect of intravenous alcohol on the neural correlates of risky
decision making in healthy social drinkers, Addiction Biology, 2012 vol 17 (2),
pp. 465-478
. Guth
W., The Generosity Game and calibration of inequity aversion The Journal of
Socio-Economics, 2010, vol. 39 (2), pp. 155-157
. Guth
W., Vittoria Levati M., Ploner M. An experimental study of the generosity game.
Theory and decision, 2012, vol. 72, pp 51-63
. John
T P Hustad, Kate B Carey, Using calculations to estimate blood alcohol
concentrations for naturally occurring drinking episodes: a validity study.
2005, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66(1), 130-138
12. Fanny
Kreuscha, Aurélie Vilennea, and Etienne Quertemont, Assessing the
Stimulant and Sedative Effects of Alcohol With Explicit and Implicit Measures
in a Balanced Placebo Design, Journal of Studies
on Alcohol and Drugs, 74(6), 923-930 2013
. Scott
D. Lane, Don R. Cherek, Cynthia J. Pietras Alcohol effects on human risk
taking. Psychopharmacology, 2004, Vol. 172 (1), pp. 68-77
. Shashwath
A. Meda1, , Vince D. , Robert S. Astur, Beth M. Turner, Kathryn Ruopp, Godfrey
D. Pearlson, Alcohol dose effects on brain circuits during simulated driving:
an fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping 2008
. L
Michalak, K Trocki, J Bond, Religion and alcohol in the US National Alcohol
Survey: how important is religion for abstention and drinking? Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 2007, Vol. 87 (2-3), pp. 268-280
. Samuelson,
P. "A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumers' Behaviour". Economica,
1938, 5 (17), pp. 61-71.
. Wong,
S. Foundations of Paul Samuelson's Revealed Preference Theory: A Study by the
Method of Rational Reconstruction. Routledge. 1978